OpenGIS
®
RFC Comments OGC 10-0767
SWE Common Data Model 2.0: Received Comments
Below is the list of all comments received during the RFC period March 15 – April 14, 2010.
1 Comment
1.1 PART A
1. Evaluator: Clemens Portele, portele at interactive-instruments.de 2. Submission: 08-094 OGC SWE Common Data Model Encoding Standard
1.2 PART B
1. Requirement: General 2. Implementation Specification Section number: General
3. Criticality: Major 4. Commentsjustifications for changes: The standardisation target for the different
requirement classes are not always clear. Consider to explicitly state the standardisation target type per requirements class as well as the direct and indirect
dependencies. For example, req 56 targets an XML instance, req 57 another schema, and req 55 targets implementations, but it is unclear what is this term
refers to. Other requirements classes explicitly refer to encoding or software, e.g. req 15, while others target software only, e.g. req 18.
2 Comment
2.1 PART A
1. Evaluator: Clemens Portele, portele at interactive-instruments.de 2. Submission: 08-094 OGC SWE Common Data Model Encoding Standard
2.2 PART B
1. Requirement: na 2. Implementation Specification Section number: Clause 4
Copyright © 2010 Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
1
OpenGIS
®
RFC Comments OGC 10-0767
3. Criticality: Minor 4. Commentsjustifications for changes: The definitions differ from the definitions in
other OGC standards. Align definitions. Often additional text is added which should be moved to notes, if necessary.
3 Comment
3.1 PART A
1. Evaluator: Clemens Portele, portele at interactive-instruments.de 2. Submission: 08-094 OGC SWE Common Data Model Encoding Standard
3.2 PART B
1. Requirement: na 2. Implementation Specification Section number: 8.3.1
3. Criticality: Major 4. Commentsjustifications for changes: Align range structure encoding with WCS
2.0 wcsgml:RangeStructure. Consistency and harmonisation between WCS and SWE Common is important, also with regard to future revisions of the coverage
encoding of GML.
4 Comment
4.1 PART A
1. Evaluator: Clemens Portele, portele at interactive-instruments.de 2. Submission: 08-094 OGC SWE Common Data Model Encoding Standard
4.2 PART B
1. Requirement: na 2. Implementation Specification Section number: 7.38.3
3. Criticality: Major 4. Commentsjustifications for changes: The scope of the data components like
swe:DataRecord is not entirely clear. Is this, for example, intended as a general encoding of record in ISO 11404? In this case such an encoding should probably
Copyright © 2010 Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
2
not be specified in a SWE standard, but a more general standard. If it is not a general encoding the scope should be clarified in the document.
5 Comment
5.1 PART A
